My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
3/16/1981
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1981
>
3/16/1981
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:49:16 AM
Creation date
6/11/2015 12:58:02 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Special Call Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
03/16/1981
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
113
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
COMMISSIONER WODTKE EMPHASIZED THAT THE GENERAL PUBLIC HAD <br />NOT BEEN MADE AWARE OF ALL THIS, AND IT WAS SAID AT THE TIME THAT NO <br />ONE IS GOING TO GET ANY EXTRA DOLLARS. DR. BURNS COMMENTED THAT NO <br />ONE IS EXCEPT THE STATE; IT SEEMS THAT THE T.R.I.M. BILL APPLIES TO <br />LOCAL OFFICIALS BUT NOT THE STATE. <br />COMMISSIONER WODTKt ASKED WHAT HAS HAPPENED IN REGARD TO <br />THE STATE MANDATE FOR 100% VALUE ASSESSMENT AND WHETHER THEY HAVE <br />CERTIFIED ROLLS THAT HAVE NOT,MET THOSE STANDARDS, <br />PROPERTY APPRAISER NOLTE STATED THAT AT THE TIME OF ELECTION, <br />HE WAS TOLD ONE ROLL HAD BEEN CERTIFIED AT 88%. HE NOTED THE STATE <br />USES PRIMARY SALES DATA - YOU TAKE THE BUYING AND SELLING PRICE OFF <br />THAT, WHICH HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE 12-15%, AND THEN IF YOU HAD A <br />ROLL AT 100% OF JUST VALUE, IT WOULD BE 85% OF WHAT THE ACTUAL SALE <br />WAS. IT WAS HIS FEELING THAT A 90% TAX ROLL WOULD BE ACCEPTED BY THE <br />STATE, BUT HE COULD NOT BE POSITIVE. HE COMMENTED THAT HE BELIEVED <br />THE ORIGINAL ESTIMATE THE STATE USED WAS SUPPLIED BY THE LOCAL OFFICE. <br />DISCUSSION ENSUED ABOUT MAKING ADJUSTMENTS ON THE ESTIMATED <br />ROLL, AND MR. NOLTE STATED IF THE 80 VALUES COULD BE RULED BACK TO <br />MAKE THE ROLL UNIFORM WITH THE 1979 VALUES, HE WOULD HAVE VERY LITTLE <br />TROUBLE, BUT THE EQUITY PROBLEM IS QUITE SUBSTANTIAL IN THE INTERIM <br />TAX ROLL. HE ALSO POINTED OUT THAT WHERE THE AGRICULTURAL CLASSIFI- <br />CATION WAS GRANTED BY THE PROPERTY APPRAISAL ADJUSTMENT BOARD IN <br />1979, IT WAS DENIED BY THE PROPERTY APPRAISER IN 1980, AND THAT ALSO <br />WILL SHOW UP. <br />COMMISSIONER WODTKE NOTED WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT AN <br />INTERIM ROLL, THE COMMISSION THOUGHT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT AN IDENTICAL <br />ROLL PLUS NEW CONSTRUCTION, NOT AN INTERIM ROLL THAT HAD BEEN ADJUSTED <br />AND AGRICULTURAL EXEMPTIONS NOT ALLOWED FOR 1981. <br />MR.- NOLTE INFORMED THE BOARD THAT FROM THE TIME THE <br />T. R.I.M. BILL WAS SENT OUT, THE PROPERTY APPRAISERS OFFICE, UNDER <br />MR. LAW'S ADMINISTRATION, CONTINUED WORKING ON THE INTERIM ROLL AND <br />MAKING ADJUSTMENTS UP UNTIL THE TIME THE BILLS WERE SENT OUT. MR. <br />NOLTE NOTED THAT THE INTERIM TAX ROLL IS A BRAND NEW PROCEDURE, AND <br />JARI-519� ,8 <br />31 WPAGE 1.36 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.